The all new 2007 figures from the Department for Transport for Vehicle Excise Duty (aka Road Tax) evasion have just been released.

You can tell something is going to be different, when you see statements like this:

Substantial improvements in the way that the roadside survey data are collected mean that evasion estimates for 2007 are not directly comparable with those from previous years.
Analyses of this year's survey data also suggest that misread registration marks do not have a neutral effect on estimates as previously thought and, instead, tend to inflate estimates of evasion.

This all sums up to a breathtaking conclusion - the evasion estimates reported last year for motorcycle were probably overestimated by staggering 300% (or thereabouts - effectively the stats were done in such a different way that it is impossible to do a direct comparison. Note also that the figures for cars were also overestimated by a similar percentage - but with less dramatic effect or tabloid outrage.)

Put another way, the headline 38% evasion figure reported last year, and repeated last month with some anti-biker vitriol by MP Edward Leigh, were roughly 4 times higher than they should have been.

At least.

In fact there are still some problems with the reported figure of 9.8% evasion for bikers.

First the sample size is still very small - that makes the error margin over 50%, so (even taking nothing else into account) the figures for bikers could be as low as 4.7%.

Second, the change to the survey methodology that had the biggest impact was the switch to using Automatic NumberPlate Recognition (ANPR) cameras. Using these they were able to check misread plates for the first time, and found they were incorrectly matching to vehicles removed from the roads much more often than they had expected.

BUT, for collecting the data on motorcycles they did not use ANPR, but instead relied on contractors stood by the side of the road with a clipboard. It seems inevitable that a guy with a clipboard by a motorway trying to jot the number of a moving bike travelling at 70mph (let's assume bikers don't ever break the speed limit) is going to write down the wrong number more often than an ANPR computer which takes a still photo of the same vehicle and then uses Optical Character Recognition software to match up the letters, for the simple reason that, the computer doesn't have to deal with the effects of a high speed movement.

Someone might have picked up on this, had the DfT not glibly stated in the previous years report, that they had computed the effect as a 'slight upward bias.' The admission that they got this so badly wrong will be little comfor

The DfT also notes they made a number of other changes to the statistical methodology, in line with the Southampton university report into their previous methods and assumptions.

It is therefore my opinion that the figures for tax evasion by motorcyclists, although markedly reduced and only a quarter of what was previously being claimed, is still a considerable overestimate.

If next year they manage to use ANPR to record motorcycles as well as cars, and also collect some hard data about relative mileages traveled by taxed vs untaxed motorcycles (which currently they only have for trucks), my bet is that the numbers will dramatically fall again.

But in light of this publication, where are the apologies.

Miscalculations of this magnitude represent some serious bungling by the 'top statisticians' we pay our taxes to employ. I think, at the very least, bikers are owed some major apologies from Edward Leigh, the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, the Department for Transport and National Statistics. The DVLA probably deserve an apology too - they were castigated for their poor performance in managing tax evasion, even though their own figures suggested they were collecting more tax than ever.

See also MCN's story.

Labels: bike, bike insurance, motorbike, motorcycle, motorcycle law, sorn, ved

link | posted by Dave Wilson at Thursday, February 14, 2008
0 comments links to this post

It seems that these days, it's hard to find a policeman when you want one. But here at Bikesure, we've found what we think is the fastest and easiest way to distract a copper from his latest doughnut and turn up at your house.

Yes, simply upload a video of your bike travelling at high speeds and overtaking dangerously to your favourite video sharing site, and a member of Her Majesty's Constabulary will be despatched to take a statement, as soon as they've conducted a thorough and wide-ranging nationwide investigation.

That's what this chap did,



and now he simply has to wait for the police to complete their investigations into who he in fact is, and his next knock on the door will likely be the entire South Yorkshire force.

Say the police:

"We will do everything we can to identify these riders."

Seriously though:

Bikers: Don't ride like a muppet (that overtaking was shocking), and if you do, don't film yourself doing it, and if you must, don't post the film onto the internet.

Police: Here's a free tip: instead of scouring the internet looking for dangerous road users, who you then can't find without a lengthy and extensive investigation, why not look for them on the roads, where they actually are, in real life, and what's more you might actually catch and stop them in the act?

Labels: bike insurance, biker, biking law, motorcycle law, police, speeding, video

link | posted by Dave Wilson at Monday, September 03, 2007
1 comments links to this post

Our man Paul is a mad keen biker, and takes a keen interest in the legal issues affecting bikers. Here's his take on the recent change in case law which affects fault liability in the event of an accident while filtering through traffic.

I should point out that, as far as I know, Paul is not a lawyer, and his post does not constitute legal advice, so don't rely on this blog in court, please!

---

FREE BEER FREE BEER

Now I've got your attention there is some information that I think you all should know about, now this may make me a little unpopular in some circles, but hey, here at Bikesure we think that you as our customers should have all the facts available to you,

In the past if a biker who was involved in a collision while filtering through stationary or slow moving traffic they were automatically found to be at least 80% at fault under a judgment called Powell v Moody 1966, then in 1972 a case Leeson v Bevis and Tolchard moved the proportion of blame to 50/50.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

New case 2006, an appeal court ruling, Davis v Shrogin, means that if a rider filtering through crawling or stationary traffic cannot be to blame if the rider had no chance to take avoiding action.

Filtering collision cases are normally dealt with by the county court, which must look to the court of appeal for guidance, so they're going to have to abide by it, BUT while filtering past moving traffic is still technically illegal - at low speed a judge would never find that, but as the speed goes up it depends on his/her discretion.

Now there is no specific mention of filtering in the highway code, so all road users should read the rules on overtaking, being a bit vague and open to personal interpretation like most laws of the land. So, in my view, slow filtering is fine, but passing cars at 60/70 clearly isn’t. The mid-point in between is a grey area so please be careful,

I think that’s about all for now,

Stay safe,

Oneleggedfreak

Labels: advanced riding, biking law, filtering, motorcycle law, overtaking, skills, tips

link | posted by Dave Wilson at Friday, July 20, 2007
0 comments links to this post